FOIA Emails Reveal Pentagon’s Tight Control Over AARO “Historical Record Report” Rollout and Messaging

A new release of Department of Defense (DoD) emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) sheds light on internal debates about the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), its scope, and how its work is presented to the public. The documents, released under case number 24-F-0894, were obtained by The Black Vault following a request for correspondence involving Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough containing the terms “AARO” or “Phillips” between February 1 and March 7, 2024.

The request yielded 14 pages of emails, many redacted, that offer a rare glimpse into how the Pentagon handled the rollout of AARO’s congressionally mandated Historical Record Report and managed both internal and external messaging.

Controlled Media Access

The emails reveal that access to AARO’s acting director, Tim Phillips, was tightly restricted. In February and March 2024, multiple journalists, including representatives from Scientific American, the Washington Examiner, and Finland’s national broadcaster YLE, requested inclusion in press briefings or sought interviews with Phillips.

Those requests were declined. “At this time, we are looking to keep any media engagement with AARO’s acting director to a small group,” Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough wrote in response to one inquiry. Another journalist expressed disappointment at the exclusion, saying it “seems to be a bit of Pentagon narrative setting versus genuine media outreach”.

A small, invite-only briefing was held on March 8, 2024, with only about seven journalists present. During the session, reporters asked pointed questions that reflected the broader public interest. One journalist pressed Phillips directly about whether high-profile whistleblowers Luis Elizondo or David Grusch had been interviewed for AARO’s review. Phillips declined to confirm, stating: “As a practice, we do not disclose who came in and spoke to us. The individuals are free to share that with you, but I’m not going to talk about who we interviewed. But anybody with knowledge of UAPs or the government covert attempt to reverse engineer or to exploit these materials, we would love to talk to them”.

Phillips also sought to portray the work as unprecedented in scope: “I don’t think there’s ever been a government organization with the authorities and with the amount of funding that we receive from Congress… I don’t believe any previous government attempt to research UFOs, UAPs has ever had that type of top cover”.

While the answers themselves added to the record, the manner in which the information was released raised broader concerns. By holding a private, invitation-only engagement, the Pentagon limited access to a select group of reporters. For others seeking answers, including those who had submitted formal FOIA requests, the arrangement stood in stark contrast to the principles of openness and transparency that Congress intended when it mandated AARO’s historical review.

ODNI’s Role Minimized

Another exchange shows discussion about whether to acknowledge the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in press materials. Although AARO operates within the Department of Defense, its statutory reporting structure, which was established under the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), requires it to report to both the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI).

Despite this, internal correspondence about the March 2024 rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report shows officials deliberately choosing to downplay ODNI’s role. In an email chain on March 5, 2024, while discussing the draft press release, Gough asked whether ODNI should be referenced since “the legislation calls for AARO producing the report — but Dir, AARO reports to PDDNI, too, so wanted to check.” The reply was clear: “Confirming that we’re good without any ODNI mention.” Who that was from was redacted and withheld.

Legally, ODNI sits atop AARO’s chain of accountability, yet in this instance the Department of Defense opted to present the rollout as a DoD-driven initiative.

Congressional Briefings and “KONA BLUE”

During March 6, 2024, classified briefings on the Historical Record Report, congressional staff pressed AARO leadership on the individuals interviewed, the scope of documentation reviewed, and “noteworthy programs,” including one labeled KONA BLUE.

According to a declassified release from the Department of Defense, KONA BLUE originated as a prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) proposed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011. The program was described in interviews as a sensitive compartment established to protect the retrieval and exploitation of “non-human biologics.” However, further investigation by AARO determined that KONA BLUE was never formally established. It received neither funding nor materials, and no data was ever transferred to DHS under its name.

The roots of KONA BLUE trace back to the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (AAWSAP)/Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 2009 to 2012. Those programs, funded by congressional earmarks, were executed primarily through Bigelow Aerospace in Nevada. DIA ultimately terminated the contract, citing “lack of merit and lack of utility” in the products provided. Following its cancellation, individuals associated with AAWSAP/AATIP advocated for DHS to adopt and fund a successor program under the code name KONA BLUE.

In 2011, DHS’s Under Secretary for Science and Technology approved KONA BLUE as a PSAP, justifying the move on claims that sensitive information and materials required this level of protection. Six months later, the DHS Deputy Secretary disapproved the initiative, citing insufficient justification and lack of credible supporting information. The program was terminated immediately thereafter.

Despite speculation surrounding the name, the official record confirms that KONA BLUE never advanced beyond proposal stage. The Department of Defense has since declassified related documents in coordination with DHS, reaffirming that “no data or material of any kind was ever transferred to or collected by DHS under the auspices of KONA BLUE”.

Gillibrand Presses for Expanded AARO Role

The records also capture friction between Congress and the Pentagon over AARO’s responsibilities. During a Senate briefing on drone incursions, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand pressed officials on why the Department lacked a central database for unmanned aerial system (UAS) incursions, arguing that AARO should serve that function.

Internal Pentagon correspondence shows immediate pushback. “We do not want to see sUAS added to AARO’s portfolio!” Pentagon spokesperson Gough wrote in an email to David A. Kozik, Director Congressional Activities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence. Kozik repliesd that AARO should serve in a coordinating capacity on counter-UAS issues, but not as the lead office. The discussions underscored a disconnect between congressional expectations and the Department’s vision for AARO’s scope.

What makes this exchange notable is the role of the official raising the concern. Under Department of Defense policy, Public Affairs personnel are tasked with communicating information and providing counsel to commanders, but not with determining mission assignments. Joint Publication 3-61 emphasizes that public affairs officers are the commander’s “principal spokesperson” and serve to advise and align communication, but their role is not directive in setting operational responsibilities. Similarly, DoDD 5122.05 and DoDI 5400.13 define the public affairs function as supporting transparency, releasing information, and coordinating messaging, not deciding organizational missions.

For that reason, Gough’s strong stance appears to move beyond the traditional remit of a spokesperson. While she is entitled to offer her views, it is unusual to see a Public Affairs official weighing in directly on whether a congressional request, which was raised by a sitting Senator, should alter AARO’s mission portfolio.

In short, while the emails show a clear disagreement between congressional intent and Pentagon preference, they also highlight the unusual position of a public affairs spokesperson inserting herself into a debate that doctrine indicates should rest with mission leadership and policymakers, not communications staff.

The newly released emails offer a glimpse into how the Pentagon manages both its internal deliberations and public-facing messaging about UAPs. The records confirm congressional pressure to expand AARO’s mandate, references to sensitive programs like KONA BLUE, and a deliberate effort by DoD and ODNI officials to shape the rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report.

While heavily redacted, the correspondence highlights an ongoing tension between secrecy, congressional oversight, and public transparency in the government’s handling of unidentified anomalous phenomena.

###

Document Archive

FOIA 24-F-0894 Release Package [16 Pages, 2.2MB]

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: